Subject: Re: Please Revert newlock2
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/20/2007 23:02:40
Let's keep this very simple: I was told the changes could go into
4.0. I'm asking that this be done now. Will it or won't it?
> You know, you keep using this "you" as if to impute some kind of
> personal authority (or guilt?) to people who are trying to
> communicate with you what they, personally, think about the likely
> collective behavior of a project that is made up of about 300
> different people.
"you" is a word in English that sucks, since it's both singular and
plural. If it's not clear from context whether I mean "you the
indvidual", or "you the developer community," feel free to ask. (In
these exchanges, I've usually meant 'developer community'.)
> You keep saying that nobody keeps you informed and that things go on
> where you can't see them; both of us probably have considerably more
> regular interaction with more people in NetBSD than you do, and we
> are, quite simply, trying to help address one of the issues about
> which you've expressed considerable discontent.
You (meant singul) no longer need to 'help address one of the issues'
at this point. It is resolved. I got that point: you (meant plural)
aren't going to solve the M:N problem in -current in any reasonable
time period. That means that we (meant plural, not the 'royal' we,)
at Picovex have to find a different way to deal with NetBSD than we
(still plural) had previously done.
We have two choices: 1) we can make all of our stuff work in -current
and then find out if 1:1 kills performance or not, followed by which
we get to come along for the ride while you make the scheduler and
interrupt handler change or 2) we can do what dozens of people here
and in current have been telling us to do: use 4.0.
My risk assessment is that we and you (plural) are all going to lose
in this, but that 2 is the way that everybody loses the least. So
now, I'm taking the next rational step and asking for #2 to be done.
> "If you can't get some of your changes into Y, you can probably get
> them into Y.1" as "I will not permit your changes into Y but good
> luck getting them into Y.1".
We (plural) do not wish to wait for Y.1. We (plural) were told Y.0
would be possible. We (plural) aren't assuming any kind of nefarious
anything. We (plural) wish a straight answer to a simple question.
Will you (plural, NetBSD developers) pull OMAP into 4.0 or not?
If you (singular) can't commit to an answer, then you (singular) need
not tell us about possible future releases, and we (plural) will
wait until someone who can commit does.
We (plural) will then act accordingly.